|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.228.167.52
I built an audio PC using these super short super flexible Sata cables and have been really dissatisfied with the defocussed and over smooth sound quality.
There is a thread in Computer Audiophile where someone put an additional shield on his stock Sata cables, and found improvements in SQ.
This prompted me to cut up one of these flat 'super' cables. Horror horror, there is no shield at all, just two drain wires on either side. The two data sections are also not separated to any extent.
So, I put copper tape over these 20 cm cables and some of the soundstage focus came back, but the thing was still unsatisfactory. It was clearly, in its raw state, picking up or radiating despite the neat cable arrangement
I finally replaced the Sata cables with 30 cm properly shielded flat cables (don't have any shorter ones now). These are transparent and so I can see spaced data pairs and aluminium tape wrap around them.
Presto, sound stage, focus, as well as hf and lf balance have come back and I am a lot happier.
The lesson really is not to trust claims for 'superior' components without thinking and analysing them. In this instance, I was coming close to wanting to sell the dac, thinking that there was something really wrong.
The other lesson learnt is that unshielded sata cables affect SQ to such an extent they they will no longer feature in any of my PCs. Unfortunately, this means cutting stock cables have a look first.
I have also bought some Sata 2 cables to see if Paul Pang' claim that Sata 3 SSDs should be connected with these in audio systems.
Follow Ups:
Before reading this post I wasn't even aware that SATA cables were available in shielded versions. I found OKgear cables on Amazon (link below) and ordered them for my music server. It's 2 days later and I just got through installing them in my server (SSD boot drive, 2 mirrored data drives, and CD/DVD drive) and I can't believe my ears. I can now hear detail I never heard before so either it's one heck of a placebo effect or it really did help so either way I'm not complaining. For $20 worth of cable you've got nothing to lose except $20 and a little time but a whole lot of great sound if it works for you. Thanks for the post.
Another possible explanation of "hearing more detail" comes from having played the same recording multiple times. Each time you listen you are starting with a different memory of what you heard before plus you are undoubtedly directing your attention different places. Hence this might account for hearing additional detail.
If there is a real improvement it will become apparent over time as you listen to a range of recordings. After doing so you should go back to the old cables and see if the sound regresses. You may also discover that details that you heard with the new cables are now obvious with the old ones. This doesn't mean that that the new cables might not have revealed more detail, just that making good subjective judgements can be extremely difficult at times.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
How anyone can have such a hard time accepting his suggestion to simply TRY something that is borderline OBVIOUSLY worthwhile is childishness.
Years ago fmak did seem to be one to try to rile folks for the sake of it. I attributed it to his assumed superiority in owning some expensive gear which he (and I know the pitfall, we have all been in that pit at some time in our audio lives) assumed have him instant credibility but lately his comments have been substantive and useful which makes the piling on inexplicable.
Seems to me he is being very friendly these days and look what happens.
As someone else opined many use shielded cable in most every other spot in our systems and yet some want some kind of measured proof that it is worthwhile to use in what is likely the noisiest environment of all.
Personally, I shy away from shielded anything as much as possible unless it turns out to be needed. I suspect most who have come up with their questions have close to hermetically sealed and shielded systems and yet find something wrong with the possibility a shielded SATA cable could make a difference.
If you want a good sounding system you better get used to trying things for yourself. Plug and play will never result in great sound. Wish it was that easy but it is not. If you demand that it be easy you will never have an idea of what is possible. You very well may be perfectly happy with that and good for you if that is the case but stop pretending you know the truth of what is possible with "music in the home" as Voight defined the ideal.
However when one dares to point out that his discoveries only pour more evidence in the pile suggesting that PCs make really lame audio playback devices, things begin to fall apart.
I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that what Fred reports is true, changing an unshielded SATA cable with a shielded one made an audible difference in his PC based system.
What many here MIGHT disagree with is his reasoning in using a PC as a digital source in the first place.
Or that by fiddling and tweaking a home brew PC, he can somehow overcome all of its inherent limitations.
Ignoring completely the fact that some might suggest that an off-the-shelf Apple product might be better, or certainly no worse.
When one dares to suggest any of the perfectly reasonable positions listed above, Fred looses all self restraint and reverts to the Fred of old.
All of which I find very entertaining. ;-)
I cannot point to an example but I feel sure fmak knows it is not the perfect way since he, and we, know there is no perfect way. Not as if CD transports are without their limitations.
But it doesn't mean we should not try and see how close we can come.
There are those who do think that the PC can do well. The fellow who is developing MQNPlayer is convinced that the PC can be better than any CD transport and many who have listened to his minimalist software agree with him.
YET, he knows, too, that there has to be a better way. And there will be a better way eventually. But in the interim ...
I think if anything comes across as ludicrous it is the MAC worship of so many. I consider it the ultimate example of plug and play dreaming. Just look at that gleaming metal box and tell me this isn't the best - as much a fashion statement as a machine.
The player is the most important aspect, and I disagree with fmak on his player choices, but to say that a MAC out of the box is some kind of excellent device for audio playback is a little silly.
Plenty of people elect to not post their systems due to fear of thieves
I live in semi-rural Georgia and have little fear anyone wants my stuff. I doubt they could get it to work if they got it out of the house. So giving carcass a hard time for not posting his system is more foolishness. He has good reason to not want to post his gear and it should be respected.
(I love the cat)
except that I might disagree with all of this fussing with computers, and yes, spent enough time around good sounding audio systems to know that an out-of-the-box Apple computer can sound quite good as an digital player, considering how bad digital sounds to this vinyl lovin' guy! =:-0
But the point here is not what Fred is trying to accomplish, it's really his over-the-top reaction to ANYONE with a differing view.
As far as MAC worship, based on my experiences in MS PC world, the MAC is a revelation! For digital audio? I still spin silver disks or use a Network Player. For casual listening, I stream QOBUZ over the internet which ain't half bad with a decent set of cans and a cheap USB DAC.
As far a the idea that the 'player is the most important', agree and I guess that's why my main 'player' is still a turntable! ;-)
As far as anyone stealing my stuff? I'd like to meet the guys who try to lug those Edgar Horns down two flights of stairs and out of this house. I'd hire them for my next move. As far as finding me, I guess that's why I don't use my real name for my moniker! I don't have to worry about guys like Fred breaking in to steal my MacBook Air! =:-0
Unfortunately, you completely fail to understand the nature of computer audio - and blindly following your ill-natured Master certainly doesn't help here.
Don't listen to me (I know you won't anyway) - but look at the journey of Bob C. For instance, ask him whether he's willing to go back to his former Mac-based solution.
"off-the-shelf Apple product might be better, or certainly no worse"
"off-the-shelf Apple product MIGHT be better, or certainly no worse"
Key word: 'might'
Complete sentence from my post above:
"Ignoring completely the fact that some might suggest that an off-the-shelf Apple product might be better, or certainly no worse."
Note that I am not advocating a position, just suggesting that SOME MIGHT and, again, the word 'might', not necessarily stating it as a fact.
That said, I HAVE heard Gordon's Apple based system, both at RMAF last year as well as prior years, and as usual it sounded every bit as good as ANY computer based digital playback system at the show. Better than YOU THINK YOUR SYSTEM SOUNDS? Not likely! ;-)
OK, those plasma tweeters pictured above MIGHT have had something to do with it. :-)
As far as the 'journey' is concerned, I've attended nearly a dozen CES/T.H.E. shows (even go married at CES in 2007 with Romy the Cat NOT being asked to be Best Man!), every RMAF but one all the VSACs but one a few more too numerous to even remember.
So while I certainly am not an 'expert' like you, and the system I listen to is hardly worth bragging about, I've heard a bit of gear and know a few folks responsible for producing it.
Oh, and at least I do post my pathetic-assed audio system on Inmate Systems!
with an air conditioner running right at the back cannot be used as any reference.
"A system with an air conditioner running right at the back cannot be used as any reference."
I could see no evidence that the air conditioner in the photo was running when the picture was taken. It is not difficult to turn off a hotel room air conditioner and the ramifications of forgetting to turn it on are not severe, unlike with domestic refrigerators:
"I will kill you if you ever again forget to plug the refrigerator back in after unplugging it while listening to music."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
nt
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I did that once...
(forgot to turn the 'fridge back on)
No real harm but I was "reformed" and in my new form I set the timer when I turn it off.
Reformed Rick
Or does you 'fridge not have an Audiophile Power Cord?
At the time I lived in an home with open plan with the kitchen, dining area, living area and entry hall all one large room with cathedral ceiling, about 38 feet by 28 feet square, although the depth varied between the kitchen area and the dining-living area. This room had superb acoustics for my wife's Steinway B and for my stereo, one of the reasons why we purchased the home.
The 'fridge did not have an audiophile power cord. I considered building one that included a power switch with timed power on... :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
CLEARLY the picture was taken at RMAF which is in DENVER and in OCTOBER.
Recall wearing a jacket to go out at night, and those 300B's don't put out THAT much heat, so I doubt the air conditioner in the hotel room was running.
But the fact that you can't read a post that discusses hearing systems at trade shows, PLUS look at a picture and guess that picture was taken at said trade show and was not someone's home system, tells all.
And who knows, perhaps Gordon uses after-market hard drive cables on his Mac Pro? ;-)
Not to mention that most all of the rooms are configured similarly so every vendor faces similar challenges.... And yet, it is easy to hear the difference between a nice setup and one that doesn't sound so great. Air conditioning in Denver in October? LOL! I don't think so. ;-)
Fred.
I'm currnently testing my ARM board in combined server and client mode
on the same machine. My Cubitruck also supports SATA.
Instead of using the network storage I might give local SATA a try.
Obviousy by using a network storage you won't have SATA cable issues.
But then you maybe face network issues. ;)
MY 2.5inch HDD is powered seperately (5V battery) btw.
I just googled an found some 30cm shieled cables from Inline (~4 €) @ Amazon.
What cables are you talking about?
THX
I get very good sound out of a VIA CV700A low power industrial PC.
There are no cables and the DOM directly plugs into the MB socket.
Music is on a 500G SSD connected with 15cm of individually shielded Sata cable. The pitfall has been that it won't do 352k dsd to pcm transcoding realtime. So I have been looking for more powerful cpus such as the 35W Pentiums fanless.
I don't know how to reply except that I think one has to try and listen, whilst sticking to first principles in use and build.
For me, all power rails are measured on my Tetronix 450MHz scope and SSDs power sources are separate. The power rails are silenced to reduce switching noise and impulsive spikes when there is power demand from the cpu.
I run nothing on my audio pcs except audio and I can run any MS OS using ejectable SSDs.
A repeatedly powerful thing to do is to use a script to move audio to one cpu and other processes to another or others. The result is a small but worthwhile Improvement to me. In the process, all other useless services are disabled and usb latency is very low.
You were talking about SATA cables, right?
What brand are u using?
diyMOD.com; Asus; Giagabyte and no brand 10 and 15 cm short shielded cable' said to be high quality. I don't that Assmann and other brands that post a drawing are any better.
By using a DOM (Disk On Module) which plugs directly onto the IDE port of a motherboard, you don't need a cable and that was what I was on about
Ah. OK. I thought the thread was about SATA cables.
I try to avoid onboard modules etc. btw. Data HDDs are externally powered.
DOM modules can be externally powered too
Really appreciate your work, and more importantly to me, another nail in the coffin of commercial computer audio playback....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
a simple statement of fact in relation to the mistaken use of an unshielded (but perfectly working in the computer sense) Sata cable. I hope that others here will be aware of the issue..
Some of the worst sounding systems are also some of the best measured ones. There is a post way down in reply to ugly where I posted some of the instruments I own and use. I have refrained from posting measurements like one inmate here that shows almost everything to measure (and sound) the same. I have learnt from experience to rely on certain indicators such as signal integrity which others will no doubt query or not understand the significance off.
... like the one you were subjected to in this thread, by, as clueless as it is ferocious, very small but very annoying, consumerist fringe.
Not to forget, of course, a stray HydrogenAudio dog with severe ear infection, who occasionally likes to bark in unison.
Who else has had offensive posts removed from this thread other than you?
And kiss ass, occasionally.
along with a string of personal insults directed a fellow inmate in a post taken down by the moderators?
You have become that which you claim to despise!
As in, the post with "circle J's" and "cluster F's", taken down in the very beginning - do you remember whose was that, by any chance?
Jes' curious...
R.
... at my posts that qualify for "consumerist fringe" or "HydrogenAudio dog" definitions - we'll have something to discuss.
"at my posts that qualify for "consumerist fringe" or "HydrogenAudio dog" definitions - we'll have something to discuss."
Well, it was actually the "protecting audio enthusiasts from assaults" clause in your headline that I was thinking of. Caustic may be cute in small doses but it's not really persuasive. Maybe it's time to move on, my Xgen friends have, especially when sober... And, I happen to know that you are well able to form cogent arguments!
Regards, Rick
Which leads me to believe that you perfectly understand that "persuasion" - which in this case is totally, 100% futile, since it pretty much equals to attempts to change human nature - is not the point of my posts.Not by a long shot.
Think of it more as a "checks and balances" thing, or "action and counteraction", or "feeding one his own medicine" - things of that nature.
Edits: 07/08/14
Ah Yes: Exercises in futility!
But if it keeps you off the street...
Rick
but the moderators are too busy taking them down!
You and your master, or you and your tapeworm?
Just can't help yourself, can you?
Yes, totally agree. But it still amazes me how many are willing to indulge in endless tail chasing. I find it mind boggling how many absurd devices are out there to "purify" the USB pipeline, and bases to kill RFI/EMI, magic USB cables that promise to cure all USB evils, and worse of all, software to "optimize" processes.
How about a device that has NO OTHER processes but to render audio?
The both of you are real funny. Same thing over an over. How do you really know it is any different with the often over priced music servers that you know and love. The things that are being discussed are often small improvements that can get the last few percent that some enjoy trying to achieve.
Maybe you can change you names to Moe and Larry... :)
Oh and let's not forget Curley who just had to have something to say. Unless he would prefer to be Shemp...
... jerking(-off) in circles, and whacking(-off) his little mole.
Edits: 07/07/14
There is nothing about the angst of computer audio that I see ANYBODY enjoying. It is nothing but constant workarounds to fix a flawed approach.The streamers I have heard, and perhaps YOU should make an effort to hear them as well, from Naim, Bryston, Marantz, Auraliti, and host of others cost no more, some times a bit less than a Mac Book Pro, the darling of most here.
Don't tell me about expensive boxes, as many are taking their off the assembly line computers whining about all its flaws, but connecting to DACs that cost many, many multiples of the computer and paying for silly software updates.
I've seen that side and it is garish. Sooloos was right ten years, ago, although their original approach is now outdated, no true music lover wants to put up with the crap that a computer brings to the table.
Edits: 07/07/14
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Whack A Mole method of computer audio tweaking
But it still amazes me how many are willing to indulge in endless tail chasing.
It's basically a few in the lunatic fringe who are endlessly tail chasing and unable to get the level of performance they desire. You'll see the same characters posting regularly about their latest 'discovery' but I would bet that the largest majority here are pretty happy with their setups and don't spend every waking moment of their lives 'discovering' new questionable tweaks. It's one thing to try and advance the hobby but a shotgun approach that isn't documented with any proof and isn't repeatable by others is just a circle jerk IMHO.
"It's one thing to try and advance the hobby but a shotgun approach that isn't documented with any proof and isn't repeatable by others is just a circle jerk IMHO."
It seems that by far the majority of the claims of "discovery" in this hobby have become non-falsifiable.
Almost certainly no measurements will be posted to show a difference in the signal, or if one is posted, then the differences will be trivially small. Instead, the only "proof" of the discovery will be the tweaker's claim to hear a difference and as we all know, claims of hearing a difference are unassailable. If another person does not hear a difference then they lack the necessary hearing acuity, or their stereo is not sufficiently "resolving," or they're not an EE, or any other fatuous point that can be made to discredit and reject the data point represented by the person who does not hear a difference.
Since these claims are not falsifiable, at least in this forum, they are not testable. Since they are not testable, they move from the realm of science to the realm of faith. Faith is simply not a good model for advancing science. Any advances will be random and the result of serendipity rather than plan. Along the way though, all sorts of wacky things can be asserted and accepted on faith that in reality do little or nothing at all. Now that may be fun for some people, but it has little to do with musical playback.
JE
1. The course of all scientific investigation & discovery is one of hypothesis and testing.
2. Investigations are qualitative: you can have good tests, & bad tests. Incomplete testing, poor testing, can still be a scientific investigation. One can engage in poor science.
3. Because one may engage in "bad" science, or use poor testing methodologies, does not mean that what they are doing is faith based or the opposite of science.
Listening tests and multiple experiences, are just one form of investigation. BETTER tests come about by combining many experiences, and many types of tests, including, (for example), accurate measurements derived from good measuring tools. Some tests are better than others.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Your comments are right on the mark.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The course of all scientific investigation & discovery is one of hypothesis and testing." I agree. For a test to be valid, it has to allow for a negative result. The test must allow the possibility the hypothesis is wrong.
My point is, on this forum at least, only positive results are accepted. That is not "testing." If anyone were to repeat the OP's original "experiment" but then reported a negative result, they would be dismissed as being deaf or having an "unworthy" stereo, or somehow not doing the job right. So long as the inmates on this forum insist on acknowledging only one type of result pretty much zero "testing" will occur. As you yourself point out, without testing there is no science.
NO ONE IS INSISTING on one type of result: that is your unfounded extrapolation.FMAK's reported tests were pretty good, and he offered no "crazy" claim. Plus his history of conducting & subsequently reporting on similar experiments/tests show not perfect, but achievable results when repeated.
No one made any claim that changing out a simple, (and incredibly easy to perform), SATA cable created any kind of major "game changer."
If someone conducted similar tests and did not hear a difference, they would likely get a "fine" from the rest of the community, - along with a possible explanation of why they did not hear a difference.
It COULD POSSIBLY be difficult to repeat the same test, - as few have the exact same equipment as FMAK.
A BETTER test would be to try it on 3 different levels of system(s).
But, that does NOT mean that FMAK wasn't making a "scientific" investigation. Obviously, - for him, - it wasn't worth it to test on 9 different systems.
The fact remains that some systems are better at producing low level detail, and are more "accurate" sounding than others: if you do not believe that going into any SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: then it's you who will not be open to a range of possibly conclusions and not engaging in "good" science.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 07/09/14
"FMAK's reported tests were pretty good"
The OP built a PC but had vague, audiophile type complaints of the sound it had: "have been really dissatisfied with the defocussed and over smooth sound quality" whatever that means. The OP read somewhere on the internet that SATA cables might affect sound quality. He examined his SATA cables and was dissatisfied with their construction. He eventually replaced them with completely different cables that looked nicer to him and then listened to his system to check his results. Can you say "expectation bias?" Can you say "lack of controls?" If this is your idea of a "pretty good" test I'd hate to see what you call a bad test.
"No one made any claim that changing out a simple, (and incredibly easy to perform), SATA cable created any kind of major "game changer.""
Are you serious? The OP said: "Presto, sound stage, focus, as well as hf and lf balance have come back and I am a lot happier." Apparently this tweak has remastered the OP's entire music library. That sounds like a major "game changer" to me.
"If someone conducted similar tests and did not hear a difference, they would likely get a "fine" from the rest of the community, - along with a possible explanation of why they did not hear a difference."
Ah, yes, the explanation of why they did not hear a difference. Because, as I pointed out before, claims of hearing a difference are unassailable on this forum. I'd bet that none of the possible explanations would be that the tweak didn't actually do anything.
"It COULD POSSIBLY be difficult to repeat the same test, - as few have the exact same equipment as FMAK."
Isn't repeatability one of the hallmarks of a good experiment? If it only works on the OP's system then who else cares?
Now I'm not saying that the OP's tweak didn't work, but I am saying that he hasn't sufficiently demonstrated to me that it's likelihood of working is enough to get me to experiment.
And I still say, however well meaning the OP is, and he does seem sincere, or plausible his explanations may be, and they do sound reasonable, no actual "science" was performed here.
You forgot to add, - "to my satisfaction."Obviously, you are not in agreement that "science" is qualitative. (And although you appeared to agree with statements above regarding science being qualitative; you now are ending your post in the contrary).
Tell us then, (and please be specific if you could), what other things FMAK could've done to move it from the realm of (whatever you call what he did), to "science" as you so narrowly define it?
Also, without doing any testing, (just speculate), can you foresee any "modifications" to any PC making any kind of SQ change whatsoever? (power supply, separate USB bus, SSD hds)?
Do you view science and technological development(s) as something that "changes" & advances due to experimentation; bringing to light more knowledge and "better" explanations than occurred previous?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 07/10/14 07/10/14
"Obviously, you are not in agreement that "science" is qualitative."
It's possible to believe both that science is qualitative and that this is not an example of science.
"Tell us then, (and please be specific if you could), what other things FMAK could've done"
How about at least single blind testing? How about more than one test? How about a before and after recording to demonstrate the change? I see fmak as at the point where he is trying to form a hypothesis. I do not see a single experiment on a single machine evaluated only by a sighted listening test as in any way "proving" his hypothesis.
I can hypothesize that putting a plate of broccoli in my PC will improve the sound. If I told you I did it and it worked, (music is now more "organic" and "earthy" with a sense of "freshness") would you call that science?
"can you foresee any "modifications" to any PC making any kind of SQ change whatsoever?"
Of course. But that's not the claim at issue here.
"Do you view science and technological development(s) as something that "changes" & advances due to experimentation; bringing to light more knowledge and "better" explanations than occurred previous?"
Sure. On the other hand, making a claim with no controls over the experiment is not going to do much to actually advance science overall.
I get the sense this sub-thread is going nowhere fast. I worry our debate will turn into a dispute and I don't want that. If you'd like, I'd be happy to drop it.
JE
You may want to think about the ridiculousness of the broccoli comment.
(see also Tony's comment (right on) below in this thread).
No point in me repeating what I said above, as you are just repeating that you do not see science as qualitative.
""It's possible to believe both that science is qualitative and that this is not an example of science.""
No, it meets ALL of the criteria of the definition!! All of it. It might be poor science, - but it meets all the criteria.
The fact that FMAK conducted 3 different tests, and the corroboration from several other people who've experimented and tested cables from external hard drives, AND the explanations offered; all point to a preponderance of evidence that points to the likelihood of a SQ difference in context: and is indeed a scientific investigation.
The fact that you stand against this, and are closing your mind to the possibility of any SQ change, shows that you're the one who has determined that there can only be one outcome: this makes you a naysayer. There will never be any test or "science" that will be adequate for your position.
Quite simply, the end result of what you ultimately hear/interpret in a music playback system interacting with your room is indeed a complex process. And our hearing/minds are capable of distinguishing subtle differences in timing and pitch of music. People who have built up, tons of experiences, and have performed testing largely agree. You can NEVER get an accurate indication of how a component behaves in a system without actually hearing it. Almost no one with experiences makes assertions and hangs on to these naysaying positions like yours: it simply does not happen.
From my perspective, it is clear: you are unwilling to garner any experiences for yourself, coupled with an unreasonably strident "burden of proof" when interpreting the results of others investigations clearly shows that you choose to remain ignorant: and further engagement would be a fools errand.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
'And I still say, however well meaning the OP is, and he does seem sincere, or plausible his explanations may be, and they do sound reasonable, no actual "science" was performed here.'
As fmak would say, this is just semantics. The value of the OP and the subsequent discussion comes from the information transmitted to lurkers and participants in the thread. It can be summarized as follows: The sound quality of your system may change if you substitute different SATA cables. This is easy and inexpensive to try. This is a cheap tweak and it's quite plausible that the sound would be altered in some systems.
I would not be concerned with hyperbolic exaggeration of benefits. This is of no import for those who enjoy their time tweaking and evaluating cheap tweaks. Hyperbolic exaggeration may be harmful when it is used to sell expensive gear of questionable value, but that's not the case in this thread.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"As fmak would say, this is just semantics. The value of the OP and the subsequent discussion comes from the information transmitted to lurkers and participants in the thread."
So you are saying that the transmission of information to others is conducting science? By writing an article on chemistry, the author is conducting science? Somehow I would have thought the science would have been conducted long before the article was written. I'm the one playing semantic games here?
"I would not be concerned with hyperbolic exaggeration of benefits."
Why on earth not? That is the core of my argument. If the OP had said he heard noise in his system and swapping out an unshielded SATA cable for a shielded one fixed the issue, you would not have heard a peep out of me. But that's not what the OP said. Instead, the OP said that swapping SATA cables virtually remastered his entire music library. Now that's a pretty big claim, and a far cry from your mild assertion that "the sound quality of your system may change if you substitute different SATA cables." The OP's claim, if credible, is revolutionary. This would be a huge breakthrough in audio. However, before we all run around and jump on this revolution, wouldn't it be prudent to have a little acutal science to back it up? And by science I don't mean churning up guesses as to how something might possibly make a trivial difference that could conceivably cause a difference in sound. I myself am intensely interested in how a cable could do what the OP claims.
"Hyperbolic exaggeration may be harmful when it is used to sell expensive gear of questionable value, but that's not the case in this thread."
This reminds me of the old joke:
"Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."
People are either bullshitting or they are not. What difference does price make?
All the Best!
JE
Using one's mind and senses to ascertain truth is what the scientific method is about. As to Science, it has become an organized religion, which is to say it has become corrupted. Science is now concerned with career and profit ahead of discovering truth.
John Swenson and others have given perfectly good explanations as to how changes to a SATA cable might affect sound. If one adapts the attitude of an experimental physicist one can get to the bottom of these issues if one wants to spend sufficient time and money. The general problem of high end audio is that it lacks sufficient money to attract the necessary talent and conduct the necessary research. There is much more money for good electrical engineers to work in the computer industry, telecommunications or military electronics.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
N/T
Great stuff.
Keep up the good work, and disregard the nasty, clueless, unable to learn anything naysayer(s), whose ultimate music-making machine is a stock computer (Mac or otherwise), and whose contributions to the hobby amount to relentlessly polluting this forum with Apple propaganda, and other equally irrelevant nonsense.
Yes, as you can see, I pay no attention to those who just post promotion codes, teardown ssd replacements and pointless remarks.
Ted is right, there are those who just like to read their own words whilst knowing little about what is being discussed.
Curious if you attempted to keep emissions down by building this PC out of all class B parts, whether EN55022-1 or FCC part 15? Are you running your DAC with the PC's cover installed? Obviously you wouldn't have had your self assembled PC tested for compliance since it would be to expensive but sum of class B parts integrations probably should get you close if you at least run with the cover installed. I've noticed that it is easy to find low cost gear only meeting class A levels which you probably wouldn't want to use if noise is a concern.
I find it interesting to note that many solutions providers seem to get away with various class B compliance without shielded sata cables. One might argue that if a specific DAC can't perform to spec in the presence of class B gear then it hasn't been done well. Though maybe class B isn't enough for the ultra highend?
The case was closed and the cable used was to try to be as neat as possible with short cabling. It is apparently a German Patented Design that looks the part and is offered a lot in Europe.
Grounding and power have been very carefully done and voltage rails have
extra bypass capacitors to suppress transients.
I am certain that it is not the external audio components but 'pollution' one way or the other of the usb audio output stream.
A PC is just a sum of it's parts. It only takes a single noisy component to ruin your installation. When building up from scratch one must scrutinize everything, especially when there are no plans to have the final configuration tested for compliance as a unit...like most of us home assemblers could never afford to do.
It's pretty easy these days to find parts which can comply with both EN55022-1 and FCC part15 B. I would never use anything less. FCC part 15 class B is pretty strict and good guideline but personally I require the CISPR B compliant gear for the fact that it must also comply with the rest of the fairly strict euro requirements beyond just the emissions part of it. Some of that stuff such as flicker compliance and the harmonics initiative compliance just makes sense to me.
Of course one must take some of these fly by night companies claims with a grain of salt. Reputable manufacturers who've proven their ability to not cease to exist due to lawsuits are the way to go in my opinion.
Most DIY PC builders are not aware of the strict compliance requirements that must be met by commercial PC makers, especially for use in the home. They also lack the costly equipment necessary to test for conducted and radiated emissions, or lack the funds to contract out the testing to a lab.
As such, a DIYer "closing the PC case with neat cabling" or blindly adding bypass capacitors to a power supply doesn't mean much. ;-)
"Most DIY PC builders are not aware of the strict compliance requirements that must be met by commercial PC makers, especially for use in the home. They also lack the costly equipment necessary to test for conducted and radiated emissions, or lack the funds to contract out the testing to a lab.
As such, a DIYer "closing the PC case with neat cabling" or blindly adding bypass capacitors to a power supply doesn't mean much. ;-)"
There is nothing special about the construction of commercial PC's. DIY PC's are often exactly the same with the same part etc. Although not tested, they will meet spec... Meeting spec IMO can be improved upon, that is what people are doing...
There is nothing special about the construction of commercial PC's. DIY PC's are often exactly the same with the same part etc. Although not tested, they will meet spec... Meeting spec IMO can be improved upon, that is what people are doing...
You don't know that for fact. I've seen several measures taken in commercially built PC's for EMI/RFI suppression that simply do not exist (and are not required) in DIY PC's. I'm not talking only about individual components but the methods used to seal case covers, additional shielding and RFI/EMI coatings within the case, additional shielding methods sometimes used around plug-in PCIe cards, ferrite chokes and specific value bypass capacitors strategically placed, etc.
Simply slapping together a DIY PC with off the shelf case DOES NOT REQUIRE passing any certifications and there is NO WAY for the builder to know how much conducted or radiated emissions are coming from his computer without very costly test equipment and a proper test environment.
That said, there is also no way for the DIY builder to know if simply slapping some 'bypass' capacitors on his power supply rails had a beneficial or detrimental effect without measuring it.
The OP is constantly ragging on commercial DAC vendors for 'measured proof', so lets see some measured proof on his shot gun whack a mole tweaks.
"Simply slapping together a DIY PC with off the shelf case DOES NOT REQUIRE passing any certifications and there is NO WAY for the builder to know how much conducted or radiated emissions are coming from his computer without very costly test equipment and a proper test environment.
That said, there is also no way for the DIY builder to know if simply slapping some 'bypass' capacitors on his power supply rails had a beneficial or detrimental effect without measuring it."
You are absolutely right. There is no way mere mortals can apply simple technology correctly. Of course capacitors cannot be used as filters, there is no math to predict their effect. They are just hit or miss when used in circuity... Thanks for the help...
You are absolutely right. There is no way mere mortals can apply simple technology correctly. Of course capacitors cannot be used as filters, there is no math to predict their effect. They are just hit or miss when used in circuity... Thanks for the help...
Thanks for misquoting me. I said nothing to that effect.
"Simply slapping together a DIY PC with off the shelf case DOES NOT REQUIRE passing any certifications
That said, there is also no way for the DIY builder to know if simply slapping some 'bypass' capacitors on his power supply"
You seem to use the word "slapping" repeatedly and you also have a monkey at a tag... Hmmmmm ok....
If slapping means measuring the power rail with a 450 MHz analog scope, and suppressing the horrific transients inside the PC, then it is a complimentary term.
If this is used blindly, then the poster is blind to reasoning.
"If slapping means measuring the power rail with a 450 MHz analog scope, and suppressing the horrific transients inside the PC, then it is a complimentary term.
If this is used blindly, then the poster is blind to reasoning."
I do not believe he owns a scope. So I think it is more inline with the definition linked below.
As far him going blind... Let's hope not... :)
You seem to use the word "slapping" repeatedly and you also have a monkey at a tag... Hmmmmm ok....
It's representative of the 'tweak' discussions here, usually initiated by the OP. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ;-)
Hopefully someone will explain it to you... lol...
you should be able to slap anything on MAC and it should sound great.
I agree with you about it being a crap shoot unless there is access to a good test lab. All you can say about more bypass caps, shorter cables, properly applied shielding etc. with all else being equal it most likely wont hurt anything....most likely, and may bring positive benefits. Choosing good off the shelf components likely not to be a problem is key in my opinion. Copying those who do in fact test for compliance is a game I often play.
Compliance is not equal to sound quality. Those who don't understand the need to have good voltage rails are just ignorant.
We are dealing with a very complex system and lower spectral emissions can mean higher energy over a broader bandwidth. This can be very bad for SQ.
It is the understanding of physical principles and their appropriate application that matter and textbook tools are used by the average designer may use to meet safety and other standards..
"Compliance is not equal to sound quality."
Indeed. The compliance tests are concerned with interference with TV and FM reception, not even AM radio reception, let alone audio. The frequencies involved are completely different. About all that one can say is that some of the methods to achieve compliance also minimize the effect on audio, but some have adverse effects, e.g. adding jitter to clock signals which makes it easier to pass compliance tests.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Compliance testing absolutely could be used to indicate directly the performance of audio equipment in typically noisy environments up to several various levels of testing intensity conformity. Immunity testing is designed to highlight performance of equipment while subjected to a battery of disturbances designed to be similar to disturbances encountered in the real world. Some pieces of gear are required to get it other types may not be(I believe, I know what I work on is required testing but not sure on audio gear).Edit:audio gear is likely required to pass EN61000-6-1 but I'm not sure and am also unsure of what is in that test or how it is conducted. ie whether the grading aspect of the immunity testing on the gear I work on is similar for this class of testing or not.
Edits: 07/07/14 07/07/14 07/07/14 07/07/14
It's not a loophole. The specific issue was interference to narrow band receivers. Spreading the signal around does not reduce total interference, which is minimal. It reduces the probability that specific interference will be noticed.
The proper solution is to declare that all the older narrow band receivers are obsolete and to reassign the spectrum under the assumption that all receivers and transmitters are "smart". This would improve available bandwidth many times over. Instead, we continue to use 1920's radio technology because of politics. That's what this is all about, politics, not technology.
Receivers should be require to work properly in the presence of interference. This is possible with modern radio technology. It has always been possible with modern audio technology, since the frequencies involved do not come close to overlapping. You are correct that DACs, preamps, and amps should be tested under extremely high noise environments, both using objective and subjective methods. (There are subjective factors that can be heard by good listeners that as yet we do not know how to measure.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Going to have to concede to your points regarding the history of the laws. Fact is I wasn't paying attention back when said laws were created.
Regardless of how the testing techniques originally came into existence, how they are currently being used is what is relevant here. I absolutely do not agree that bouncing the clock frequency around as a method to come in under limit lines which in my opinion are probably too high already is somehow not taking advantage of a loophole. It is how spread spectrum is being used now to leverage so called quasi peak averaging that matters. That is to allow energy levels on clock signals which would never be allowed if instantaneous peak levels were the only consideration. You said it yourself old radio receivers where it would be annoying are mostly gone. The method of skirting the overly reasonable limits persists.
The reason is, audio gear susceptibility is rarely if ever selective as radio receiver front ends are designed to be and therefore the degradations are potentially even more annoying with audio gear which can't reject it. Spreading the energy up and down by a couple megahertz is not going to make the problem less annoying than with smaller levels of this clock jitter for most susceptible audio gear cases I'd say.
Clearly none of us here care about radio recievers designed to detect bands from the 20's. There has been at least one poster on this thread to lament the awfulness of out of band RF etc energy in their audio systems. I will add my 2 cents to that complaint for all the times in my past when I had less robust setups and when I'd be affected by ultra powerful CB radios passing nearby, light switches contacts, hard drive seek motor activity interference, cell phone activity sounding like total crap when they'd make themselves apparent in my non radio receiver sections of my stereo.
Further there have been audio gear manufacturers who have come on this forum to complain how really strong immunity circuitry causes their stuff to sound bad. None of us wants bad sound but I suspect there may be an acceptable compromise to achieve a balance.
I propose to you the correct way of dealing with this problem is a bit of manipulation of both sides of the equation.. ie we push for lower emissions from radiating gear and we push for stronger immunity from audio gear.
I'm all about quiet power. Not sure if you somehow got the idea I'm not.FCC part 15 testing covers up to 40GHz. Where exactly do you expect this whack a mole problem from a typical PC to even physically be capable of showing up? Do you have anything specific you are referring to?
I'm not saying your wrong just that if the full suite of euro and USA testing has occurred and the device passed, most of the bands where problems are likely have already been tested.
Personally I think Id rather deal with a lower energy broadband noise problem below class b lines than some high energy high Q spike above the line from a PC circuit board I didn't even design, have no schematics/bills of materials for and am clueless about it's layout. Maybe it's just me.
Edits: 07/05/14
'FCC part 15 testing covers up to 40GHz'
A spectrum is just a spectrum. How individual or groups of harmonics interact with hardware is another matter and there cannot be a generalisation about their effects on say, a well shielded and grounded dac some way away. For example, a dac may not be affected by a sharp harmonic at 40GHz but may well be excited by broadband emission at a much lower frequency.
So, it is a good thing that computers should satisfy emission requirements but that does not mean that a computer with an active interface such as Thunderbolt (satisfying an emission standard) will replay audio better and produce better sound.
I have several other industrial PCs built like tanks (and to code) that actually do not fare any better than my self built ones.
Again, it is the understanding of the physical principles and their applications that matter, not the application of any code that does not relate directly to audio reproduction.
As to buying FCC/EN components, unless one has the volume to buy direct, there is no certainty that retail houses will actually supply a component to a quoted spec. There is not really any guarantee that any product with a label will do so unless individually checked. Price prohibits this. The usb2 (usb3 too) label is a case in point, for example.
Equipment with tendencies to exhibit susceptibility problems will exhibit the problems less in the presence lower energy disturbances. Equipment likely to radiate will be less disturbing to the environment if it radiates less. If I was a betting man I'd take the tested, marked gear every time.
You're right that without specific knowledge of each equipments peculiarities in these regards you still can't be positive there wont be unexpected negative interactions with random combos of gear.
I've stated it before here about my desire for more comprehensive published results, both for emissions and immunity, from manufacturers beyond what is required by laws. I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
"As to buying FCC/EN components, unless one has the volume to buy direct, there is no certainty that retail houses will actually supply a component to a quoted spec. There is not really any guarantee that any product with a label will do so unless individually checked. Price prohibits this. The usb2 (usb3 too) label is a case in point, for example."
Precisely the reason I recommended to go with established name brands. Manufacturers claiming compliance beyond what production tolerances allow simply don't last in the european market once the law catches wind. Corruption aside, there are plenty of compliant pieces at your local retailer which can be trusted with fair levels of confidence. I can almost promise the euro authorities aren't granting favors to many of the outsider manufacturers who sell there even if it does look like they give some of the locals a pass sometimes.
"Precisely the reason I recommended to go with established name brands."
When you say "name brands" What exactly do you mean? Parts? Systems? If systems, can you please explain the difference between a system assembled by a manufacture vs DIYer?
regards
Bob
I was talking about DIY pc's and was referring to the components used to assemble with."If systems, can you please explain the difference between a system assembled by a manufacture vs DIYer?"
Companies like HP, Dell etc when selling systems into Europe need declarations of conformance and to display the CE mark as required by law in order to legally sell there. While it's possible to self certify, if one doesn't actually meet the requirements to pass there are stiff legal penalties which can get applied. DIY assembled PC's exist with no legal scrutiny presumably other than the applicable requirements on the components purchased used to create them. Often subtle but important construction/configuration differences can be found in compliant systems as compared with DIY boxes...spread spectrum possibly being turned on by default for example. Not to say DIY boxes can't ever be good just that until someone tests it there is no way to know.
You can get these declarations of conformance for the systems off the websites usually. They are legally required and so are available by request if not posted.
Edits: 07/06/14
"Often subtle but important construction/configuration differences can be found in compliant systems as compared with DIY boxes...spread spectrum possibly being turned on by default for example. Not to say DIY boxes can't ever be good just that until someone tests it there is no way to know."
Just wanted to clarify. Thanks... But... There really is nothing special or much different that manufactures are doing other than testing.
In fact DIY can be much better. Check out what is being done and the discussion on the JPlay forum regarding RFI reduction and shielding.
Granted we cannot test the completed systems, but IMO this is really unnecessary with proper understanding of the technology involved.
We are also attempting to reduce internal RFI, something which manufactures have no real interest in.
regards
Bob
I can certainly appreciate the effort of experimenters and would never try to discourage it. However, without testing there leaves too much uncertainty for my taste for the most part. I just don't have the time to waste on things that aren't guaranteed... for the most part.I'd really enjoy an opportunity to one day meet up with one of low power PC software tweaking types to compare the capabilities of what I'd consider a well vetted high computing performance hardware but standard software system compared with one of these stripped down tweaked out systems on a sufficiently high res analog front end. Don't know if I'll ever make an effort to get it done but it does seem interesting to me.
thanks for the tip on the JPlay forum I'll be reading through it.
Edits: 07/06/14 07/06/14
What tests are appropriate as indicators of sound quality? Certainly not just a spectrum sweep which is an indicator of emission compliance only.
If you drop preconceived notions of what is good, there are plenty of intelligent audio modders to talk to (and perhaps learn from).
Obviously the ones related to immunity and the performance grading are quite applicable even if no manufacturer I'm aware of reports on the details of these tests.
My point is not that shielded sata cables can never be a good thing but that in most cases I'm skeptical that is the best place to start. Knock yourself out shielding your cables. It will be interesting to hear about what you find, more interesting if you had an accurate way to measure the performance difference but still interesting.
Perhaps you ought to drop pre concieving ridiculous attitudes and trying to attribute them to me, learn more about what the testing actually does before globally condemning it, and consider learning about the ways these things may be applicable to achieving your own goals.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain ideas I come across which strike me as reasonable per my understanding, but sometimes lose interest very quickly when confronted with irrational, emotional saviors who have convinced themselves they have it all figured out and are spewing peusdo technical garbage as fast as possible across the forums. Seems these guys forum presence far out weigh and out voice the more logical methodical experimenters. I mentioned earlier about my lack of patience.
Based on what I've read and in my opinion many of the experimenters out there, not necessarily you per se, have yet to figure out the basics and need to focus outside their PC's, fixing the glaring issues before addressing the minutia. My recommendation is to take these experimenters advice with a gigantic truckload of salt.
Where on earth did you get this notion from? It's clearly a preconceived notion about what I was posting.
Where? Duh, by leaving it in the context of the rest of the sentence which went with it. Are you serious right now?
In the same sense that a (MAC) thunderbolt drive and cable may perform differently, AND in the same sense that 2 external USB cables may perform differently, and in the same sense that a different linear power supply may perform differently: what is the best way to test and measure whether or not an internal SATA cable performs differently? Wouldn't more than one test be helpful.
Clearly, FMAK conducted several tests.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"What are you calling minutae, and why?"
An example: the perceived benefits of addressing the usually huge and readily audible problems associated with improper grounding of multi component systems will in many cases far outweigh the benefit of addressing some lower energy noise problem where the effects falls well under the noise floor of the larger problem.
Not to accuse anyone one in particular of incorporating improper grounding techniques. The point is it is nearly impossible to know from which level of experience and success each poster speaks. I've seen spectral plots of sampled analog inputs by guys who I'd figured had it together suggesting severe setup flaws. I've learned to try not to over/under estimate anybody I don't know.
Thank you for your response.
Certainly improper grounding either by the manufacturer of 1 component, - or inherent in the system due to a grounding mismatch is a BIGGER issue than a SATA cable in the transport.
Likely, however, a big issue like that would've reared its ugly head long before FMAK or anyone got involved with a computer as transport.
Someone with Fred's experiences and knowledge shouldn't be questioned on the former IMO: especially given the history of his posts, and his related experiences with other components. AND, as Carcass pointed out, this is just about the easiest thing that anyone could try, the difference between a $.90 and at most, $40 shielded cable that anyone can unplug from the mainboard, and into their internal HD.
I have to agree that this giant thread is a "cult of personality" thing where anything that Fred says, (even if he agreed with the 'computers are wonderful' party line), he'd get piles of shite thrown at him.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I have used one point grounding and ac isolation for over 30 years. It is a given and I don't know why you had assumed that I placed Sata cables ahead of this.
Do you ground the various lumps of metal in your PCs? Even manufacturers with 'tested' machine don't.
Considering this was an answer to another poster, I see little point in explaining myself here other than to ask how could I possibly know your views on grounding until you just said so. I barely know anything about you. The original statement was obviously stated in the context that "most cases" of posts of random posters found here are likely users that have no clue about rf grounding. I still think that. That I even went on to state further down in my response to sordidman that I wasn't trying to specifically accuse you of poor grounding still I get this apparent temper tantrum.
"Do you ground the various lumps of metal in your PCs? Even manufacturers with 'tested' machine don't."
Please be more specific.
ask and please don't preach.
There is only one inmate that I won't respond to when asked, because, when you reply to one question, he asks ten others that either circumnavigate or show off his own 'knowledge' of everything.
I would hate to have been his employee and in any case, I used to deal with such people fairly effectively ie become his/her boss, or go elsewhere.
Clearly, FMAK conducted several tests.
Well, lets SEE his setup, his methodical approach, and his proof. He flames manufacturers for 'proof' all the time yet we are supposed to follow along as he plays whack a mole?
I would have to agree that Abe's logic is correct that Fmak provides no test method, posted results or any other data to back up his claim. If he has a TEK scope he can take snapshots and post the results for all to see, as well as his system to discern the sonic qualities of the changes made.
This is certainly not to much to ask from a so called "expert".... I am not condoning his purpose, just the delivery by which he states his position without any data. We did not achieve audio reproduction without sound technical engineering.
As another has stated, it would be nice to evaluate the sonic differences on another system with several different computers. I am certain my system is more than capable of resolving any differences. Anyone in the Chicagoland area is free give it a try at my residence.
MAK
I would hazard to guess that about 70% of your posts in PC Audio forum are dedicated solely to angry reactions to fmak's posts, picking fights with fmak, and threatening to complain about fmak to moderator.
Should it really surprise anyone, that you'll agree with whoever else hates fmak's guts - and the more, the merrier?
Fmak tired something, achieved a positive result in his system, and reported it, so everyone else could try for themselves - what's so fucking difficult to comprehend? He doesn't owe you, nor anyone else, any proof - go get it yourself, if you're so inclined.
fmak says he obtained a positive result in his system. My problem is that fmak never tells us what his system is and it always seems to be changing. I'm sorry, but I am suspicious. When I have an unsatisfactory playback I keep changing my system. When I get a positive result I stop changing my system and start enjoying music. Now it may be that fmak's system sounds great. Indeed, it might take only a few minutes actually listening to it to ascertain whether this is so or not. However, this is not an opportunity I have. All I have is what he posts. I don't see technical claims and justification for them, such as what a nerd would post. I also don't see the type of detailed and careful subjective reviews that a non-technical reviewer such as Mercman writes.
I also don't see interesting references to good, albeit unconventional music such as you occasionally post. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Rummelsnuff - "Bratwurstzange"Won't win any prizes for sophistication any time soon, but together with video - is pretty enjoyable.
Edits: 07/08/14
"fmak says he obtained a positive result in his system. My problem is that fmak never tells us what his system is and it always seems to be changing. I'm sorry, but I am suspicious."
In this case what his system is not really important IMO. He found that a shielded SATA cable was an improvement. I also use a shielded cable in my audio system. You own a system from a manufacture I believe. Is it an Asus? If so you probable have a good SATA cable. Some of the generic flat cables are not good for audio, this is been discussed on other forums. A cable is only a few dollars, if you want to use some copper tape another few. How can this be faulted?
regards
Bob
which is not good either
"which is not good either"
I happen to use a 6in cable,but if read the thread on CA the ASUS 18in was also a good cable according to some posters. Someone also split and twisted it.
May not be a good thing as it disturbs geometry.
What cable do you use and are you sold on Paul Pangs's?
I use an Ok gear nothing exotic, but I think it meets the criteria. I have not tried Paul's cables yet. I do use his USB card and I am impressed. From what I hear with the cards, and the feedback on the web I would expect his cables to be good also. He puts allot of time and effort into what he does, pretty cutting edge. He even updates MB clocks.
a similar one to yours but the distance in the case I posted was too large.
I have two SATA cables in my system, one for each disk drive. One SATA cable came with the disk that was bundled in my system. The other SATA cable is used with a 4 TB internal hard drive that I added. As far as I can tell, both cables are the same. Most of the SATA cables in my collection came with various disk drive kits that I have acquired over the years. They all look alike.
I also have an ESATA cable. This involves a regular SATA cable inside the box to a header to an external ESATA cable (which is shielded). This connects to a Blac-X device that has a slot into which one can drop an internal drive and use it externally. Normally this slot is unused ant the Blac-X device not powered up. I use this for off-site backups.
During normal audio playback there is no activity on any of these SATA cables, as far as I am aware of. As such, they are definitely not in the audio signal path on my system. It was a deliberate decision on my part to play out of a RAM disk, and this was based in part on sound quality issues. It also provides a convenient way for me to store my library in FLAC and yet play WAV files.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
have not addressed a single point about the topic regarding spread spectrum and how it may affect audio.
I posted about what I found wrt a cable which was not shielded. If you are unhappy with this, all I can say is that you are trying to apply preconceived ideas about how computers should be made to how computer audio can be improved.
Are you interested in audio at all?
You know fmak my intent was not to be offensive. I was just being critical. My kid hates it but I can't seem to help myself. Probably a big part of why the old lady is anow an ex.I do appreciate that you liked the result. To me it is now a noted data point suggesting it could be a useful mod in some cases. My frustration is simply that it hasn't been quantified in terms I can understand.
Edits: 07/07/14
I don't mind at all, provided that it is not based on assumptions about that are not true.
I also don't accept pomposity from those who think they know better without first asking about the circumstances.
Whatever. I started (see my first post to you) by asking you about your system. It was you who chose to not discuss that and deflect the conversation. Now you will whine about me not asking about your system??
"have not addressed a single point about the topic regarding spread spectrum and how it may affect audio."
It will likely be system dependent what the effect will be, both dependent on the noise source and dependent on the impressed noise problem. Reducing the emissions from noise generators will lower noise and/or distortion in devices susceptible to it.
How's this for you? I'm not going to speculate about how this quantitatively applies to the nearly infinite possibilities of equipment combos.
"I posted about what I found wrt a cable which was not shielded."
You mean this?
"Presto, sound stage, focus, as well as hf and lf balance have come back and I am a lot happier"
I have no idea what you are even talking about there. I speak in terms of things like noise and distortion. You know, things which may be measured.
"Are you interested in audio at all?"
Of course. Are you interested in something besides fairy dust and magic beans?
n
Generally agree. However,
''Equipment with tendencies to exhibit susceptibility problems will exhibit the problems less in the presence lower energy disturbances. Equipment likely to radiate will be less disturbing to the environment if it radiates less. If I was a betting man I'd take the tested, marked gear every time.''
This viewpoint is just a hope for the best as spread spectrum techniques create large numbers of harmonics that may excite and which will be absent otherwise. So, it is not really a statement of goodness.
The days of type approval testing seem to me to be over (I used to do it),
as Governments have conceded standard setting to some of the big boys. At best, standards are a compromise amongst vested interests anyway.
I used to manage some BSI/European Standards Committees and was aware of the intense sectorial interests, having raised £1/4 mil just by sending 80 letters to firms to fund one.
Good point. Spread spectrum techniques do seem like cheating. No one is saying the laws are perfect. It's the manufacturers of certain types of equipment who come up with this stuff, and consumers put up with it by mostly not having a clue. I don't know if audio, ham, etc has the lobbying power collectively to cause change but then I'm not hearing much clamoring from the manufacturers either. Sensitive anlaog system users unite!
"Compliance is not equal to sound quality."
There is no "cheating" involved with spread spectrum. The goal was to prevent TV interference, or interference to other narrow band signals because of the use of obsolete receiver technology. It's only "cheating" from the audio perspective if one expects that the solution to the TV problem somehow carries over to the audio case. This makes no sense, because the TV receiver and audio system are different devices with different characteristics.
I deal with the SATA problem on my system by not using SATA to transfer any files while listening to music. All the SATA action happens before playback begins, while the files are read off of disk, decoded from FLAC to WAV if necessary, and stored on a RAM disk.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The goal was to prevent TV interference, or interference to other narrow band signals because of the use of obsolete receiver technology."
Not true as I understand it. The goal is to spread out the energy of energetic peaks to a wider band which will allow the manufacturers to utilize a loophole in the test method to attain compliance. The goals in setting test limit values had to do with preventing unwanted interference in RF receivers such as TV's but also in limiting malfunctioning of other types of equipment not intended as receivers such as pacemakers.
"The goal is to spread out the energy of energetic peaks to a wider band which will allow the manufacturers to utilize a loophole in the test method to attain compliance."
The test method was not a "loophole". It was good engineering to address a specific technical problem that was a result of interference actually observed. My knowledge is based on conversations with engineers for a large computer company where I worked that were specifically concerned with achieving conformance and which, of necessity, had a thorough understanding of the issues involved. The requirements were designed to protect the interest of competing radio services that used narrow band modulation. The advantage of spreading the interference over a wide band of frequencies is that it minimizes the probability of interference in any actual situation, where there are a small number of frequency bands that are active and most others are inactive. However, the active frequencies are specific to the particular installation, e.g. the local TV channels and the ones the neighbor actually wants to watch at the time the offending computer is powered up. Spreading the bandwidth of noise is not likely to affect systems such as pacemakers which are not narrow band radio receivers.
I've seen interference between computerized avionics where the noise from the computer killed certain of the VHF comm channels. The fix was to change the software to move the noise to different channels that were unlikely to be used. (This was done by the manufacturer of the offending avionics who happened to be a personal friend and I have personally experience the "before" and "after" effect on my radio reception.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I guess we'll have to disagree about the semantics about whether it is a loophole that a single frequency clocks larger energy content at a specific frequency per time is some how better than the same amount of energy spread over a wider band by utilizing spread spectrum techniques and allowing so called "quasi peak" measurements of this energy to now fall under legal limits in cases near the line.
"Spreading the bandwidth of noise is not likely to affect systems such as pacemakers which are not narrow band radio receivers."
perhaps not but as I was saying the limits were definitely conceived to help ensure proper operation of a wide variety of electronics within reasonable ambient environments. Not just radios.
Semantics is the guy's strong point and this is why I do not debate with him.Anyway, I thought I would post a picture of a small no of instruments I have to make measurements.
This includes:
1uV 1Hz-1MHz AC Volmeter
8 digit volt-ohm meter
HP digital scope 150 MHz with FFT function.I also use others such as -110dB thd+n meter, 64 bit pro FFT program etc.
If I am younger and more keen on measurements as I was then, I would buy an AP2 or better a Rhode and Schwarz
Edits: 07/07/14
I was getting dizzy...
A 150 Mhz scope is not going to be useful for examining signal quality of interconnects such as USB 2.0 and SATA. Look at the recommended test equipment in the link below. Big bucks are involved in test equipment, probably more than most audiophiles have in their entire system.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
to say or assume that I use a 150MHz scope with FFT to measure usb eye patterns.
It is actually far more useful in looking at the harmonics of XOs, with printout capability.
In other words, you admit the obvious. You don't have the tools necessary to measure signal integrity on high speed cables such as SATA and USB 2.0.
Have you found a connection between harmonics of XO's and sound quality?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
inappropriate comment that makes others wonder what you are up to. I never said |I have or did it.
''In other words, you admit the obvious. You don't have the tools necessary to measure signal integrity on high speed cables such as SATA and USB 2.0.''
And if it is obvious, why ask? Do you just want to read your own words as Ted posted earlier.
I posted because of comments inmates made regarding your equipment photo. It might have not been obvious to some that your tools were inadequate for the purpose of tweaking SATA and USB 2.0 systems.
I do not go into modifying computer hardware because I know what tools are necessary having worked with a hardware lab containing hundreds of thousands of dollars of test equipment. There are people here with adequate tools, but most (if not all) sport the (M) moniker. Because of the small size of the high-end audio marketplace, even manufacturers have difficulty affording the necessary tools. One advantage of IIS and SPDIF are the lower data rates, enabling less than a $20,000 scope to show eye patterns.
You did not answer my question about harmonics of XO's.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
you frequently put inappropriate interpretations on my answers to you, I decided a long while ago not to answer your questions and that has been made obvious to you. I note that you have also misinterpreted what was said by others about the picture of some instruments that I posted.
It is your privilege to ask and my privilege not to respond.
If you don't like having your posts misinterpreted then I suggest you take more care in writing them. You might also consider that your inability and/or unwillingness to answer simple questions might not put you in a good light.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
that you need to learn to read properly. Noone else misinterprets my posts like you have bee doing.
I reckon that it is deliberate.
Deliberately reading improperly. An interesting concept, almost an oxymoron.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Nice stuff. I wish my own lab were so nicely equipped.
and who have the expertise will buy instruments. I know a guy who sells toys and is a nuclear physicist who bought a wavecrest to check jitter.
So many amateurs who don't declare their methods of assessment are quite knowledgeable. It's a case of web citizens accepting at face value what is posted.
Why, because they don't want to spend time arguing with some so and sos who think they know better. I am one of them. I spend my time improving my systems instead.
how ridiculous posters can get, stating that my 150 MHz scope cannot be used for usb eye patterns.
Edits: 07/09/14
"spread spectrum techniques create large numbers of harmonics that may excite and which will be absent otherwise. So, it is not really a statement of goodness."
Spot on Fred. About the only thing spread spectrum really helps with is the spectrum analyzer in the test chamber. Stuff with real-time, broadband susceptibility, say audio gear, could care less. It doesn't even need any processing gain to sound bad, just out-of-band energy.
Rick
"It doesn't even need any processing gain to sound bad, just out-of-band energy."
How does this bad sound due to noise at ~1-100's of GHz manifest itself audibly in our systems? What should we be listening for? My own system seems to be achieving spec'd SNR's for example and I don't even turn that spread spectrum stuff on presumably making my noise peaks even more intense on average.
Quite simply thru intermodulation and excitation over the range of frequencies.Ever had your mobile phone cause pops in your digital system or 2+ GHz satellite TV cause deterioration in SQ?.
These are real and the simplest example is the well known usb audio chip that simple sound bad due to spread spectrum techniques to lower jitter peaks - the energy remains the same however you 'spread' it.
Edits: 07/07/14
Well, to be fair there are many possible ways a pc can disturb an audio system and you didn't actually bring up spread spectrum until a couple posts back. I already mentioned I'm not a big fan of the spread spectrum technique.
I used to have pops and breakthrough in my system due to external RF sources. Spent a lot of time figuring out why they were there and finding ways to mitigate the problem. Haven't had those types of problems in a while. Magically, all the hard drive activity and other obviously pc related noise all vanished to a don't care, can't hear it with the volume cranked level of annoyance at the same time. Single point ground is a good thing.
"What should we be listening for?"
Good question. No singular answer. In general it's out-of-band amplitude variations that may get "detected" at various spots in the audio gear and the ilk of errors depends upon where the detection occurs and what the interfering signal looks like.
Back in my day sonny... The common problem was AM broadcasts and that was pretty obvious. Nowadays interference is likely to be more subtle. Not being a believer in the evilness of Z-beads, when I get a new component I usually make a pass of putting them on it's various wires like power and I/O's just to see if I hear any difference. I'd like to say that I'm thorough and analytical and chase things down to root cause. But... most of the time if they improve things, I just leave them.
One system instance in a single environment with a single user is a far cry from trying to insure adequate performance for everybody everywhere! Yes... our home stereo's really ARE about us!
Regards, Rick
the different stance taken by testers and those in R&D who work from first principles.
Those were the days when I was young....
@fmak:
Which sata cable did you use, is there a brandname ?
I saw this:
http://www.dx.com/p/double-hasp-straight-head-sata-ii-data-cable-blue-25cm-172140
Would that be good?
Shieldless this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sata-3-6Gbs-Cable-15cm-Ultra-Slim-Short-Connectors-/310941304827?pt=UK_Computing_Case_Mods_Stickers_Decals&hash=item48658bc7fb
short and sweet but no good in terms of SQ.
Shielded:
I don't know origin; it was supplied with a motherboard.
I have ordered a bunch of shielded cables from different sources. One claims to have 'elaborate' shielding (modDIY.com).
I shall try them and see if I can reach some sort of conclusion.
You should cut up your cable to see how well it is shielded and how good the conductors are. Some usb cables even have steel or aluminium weaved shields that require an argon arc to weld!
My work does not directly relate to compliance issues but I am often asked by my customers for copies of compliance certificates (EMI/RFI), power/cooling requirements, power supply efficiency at different loads / power factor, letters of volatility and such. We actually have 'compliance engineers' who expertly deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. Fun stuff.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: